4 ms·

Because as wealthy families produce offspring who do not need to work or earn income in order to compete for finite resources with those who do, the cost of tho

by svnt 2y ago

Because as wealthy families produce offspring who do not need to work or earn income in order to compete for finite resources with those who do, the cost of those resources increases, while the burden of labor and stress falls increasingly on the employed. Eventually the man dying while making an income and spending no time with his child will grow to resent the one making the same income through family wealth who has enough time for that and more.

TZubiri 2y ago
Might you be conflating finite for static? Or more charitably, implying and assuming the growth rate is smaller or equal to consumption. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but that would need to be the case for your argument. Also the ratio of wealthy to non wealthy needs to be quite high. Also wealth needs to be transferred and maintained, and not spoiled or lost. I think those are the assumptions. But yeah, under those conditions, the competition for resources would mean in order to move upwards someone needs to come down. But it would need to be a zero sum economy
- svnt 2y ago
  Thank you for passive-aggressively outlining the infinite growth mindset. Falsely equating economic growth with cost of living metrics, and assuming that with more money everything can just continue happily. It’s been a very successful evolutionary niche for a handful of centuries.
dingnuts 2y ago
when wealthy people have kids their wealth is diluted. Truly, one of the best parts of Elon Musk having so many fucking kids is that at least his fortune will be greatly divided and spread the second he dies Generational wealth rarely lasts more than a generation or two. Families like the Rothschilds seem to be more the exception than the rule. Though I am not wealthy so perhaps I truly don't know what it's like in the big club I'm not in
- TZubiri 2y ago
  Also it's not enough in my experience to just give the money, also time. And not too much money, gates famously gave 10m "only" to each child
- icedchai 2y ago
  Sure, each one of his kids will probably only inherit a few 10's of billions. What do you think the effective difference between 10 billion and 100 billion is? You're rich AF either way.

by svnt 2y ago

TZubiri 2y ago

Might you be conflating finite for static? Or more charitably, implying and assuming the growth rate is smaller or equal to consumption. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but that would need to be the case for your argument. Also the ratio of wealthy to non wealthy needs to be quite high. Also wealth needs to be transferred and maintained, and not spoiled or lost. I think those are the assumptions. But yeah, under those conditions, the competition for resources would mean in order to move upwards someone needs to come down. But it would need to be a zero sum economy

svnt 2y ago
Thank you for passive-aggressively outlining the infinite growth mindset. Falsely equating economic growth with cost of living metrics, and assuming that with more money everything can just continue happily. It’s been a very successful evolutionary niche for a handful of centuries.

dingnuts 2y ago

when wealthy people have kids their wealth is diluted. Truly, one of the best parts of Elon Musk having so many fucking kids is that at least his fortune will be greatly divided and spread the second he dies Generational wealth rarely lasts more than a generation or two. Families like the Rothschilds seem to be more the exception than the rule. Though I am not wealthy so perhaps I truly don't know what it's like in the big club I'm not in

TZubiri 2y ago
Also it's not enough in my experience to just give the money, also time. And not too much money, gates famously gave 10m "only" to each child
icedchai 2y ago
Sure, each one of his kids will probably only inherit a few 10's of billions. What do you think the effective difference between 10 billion and 100 billion is? You're rich AF either way.